New children and education complaint decisions

View online A weekly update on children and education complaint decisions Please note: our decisions are published six weeks after they are issued to councils, care providers and the person who has made the complaint. The cases below reflect the caselaw and guidance available at the time of issue and the individual circumstances of each case.   Central Bedfordshire Council (22 011 093) Summary: There was fault in the way the Council considered applications for home to school transport for two siblings who moved into the area. This casts doubt on the decisions to refuse transport. The Council will reconsider the applications, apologise and make a payment for time and trouble. North Northamptonshire Council (23 000 971) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the Council's late issue of a new Education Health and Care Plan for her son's transition to secondary school. Although it was late, the Council named the provision she wanted. The injustice caused by the delay is not sufficient to warrant investigation. Hampshire County Council (22 016 946) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of social workers in dealing with Mr X. The substantive matter is one we have already considered and found we have no legal authority to investigate. The remaining matters are separable from that, but they are not likely to have involved sufficient fault or created a separable injustice to Mr X that would warrant our involvement. Hampshire County Council (23 001 115) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about child protection. This is because Ms X is not complaining as a member of the public. Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (21 017 943) Summary: Mrs B complains the Council did not deal with her daughter's education properly. The Council did not consider the provision of alternative education, failed to ensure Special Educational Needs (SEN) provision was made and did not fulfil its responsibilities regarding an annual review. Mrs B suffered avoidable distress and had to go to avoidable time and trouble. C missed educational and SEN provision. The Council has agreed to apologise, pay Mrs B £2,550, pay Mrs B £100 for avoidable distress and time and trouble, provide guidance to staff and provide a report to the Ombudsman. London Borough of Sutton (22 009 987) Summary: Mrs X complains about the delay by the Council in issuing her son's Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP). She says the Council also ignored her request for reasonable adjustments when communicating with her. We find fault with the Council for the delay in issuing the final EHCP and for not carrying out the reasonable adjustments sought. We have agreed remedies to ensure this does not happen again. Oxfordshire County Council (22 012 848) Summary: We found fault with the Council for the delays in issuing Education Health and Care Plan (EHCP) for the complainant's (Mrs X) son (Y), not providing suitable education for Y since he stopped attending school in January 2022 and failure to ensure his special educational provisions (SEP) were delivered till mid-December 2022. These faults caused Y and Mrs X injustice. The Council agreed to apologise, make payments for the delays, lack of education and distress and carry out some service improvements. Buckinghamshire Council (22 013 110) Summary: Ms X complains the Council did not provide suitable school transport for her disabled daughter. She says the taxi service provided by the Council caused her daughter stress and anxiety and was not reasonably safe. Ms X said the Council's actions meant she had to take her daughter to and from school, incurring time and trouble to her. We found fault by the Council and the Council has agreed to provide a remedy to recognise the injustice identified. Devon County Council (22 015 736) Summary: Ms X complains about the Council's delay in responding to her request for an Education Health and Care Plan Needs Assessment for her child causing distress and uncertainty. We found there was service failure by the Council due to the delay in responding to Ms X's request. We have recommended a suitable remedy in this case and so have completed our investigation. Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (22 002 899) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint his son was injured at school. That is because we have no jurisdiction to investigate what happens in schools. We will also not investigate his complaint about the Council's communication with him or its decision to refer to a multi-agency domestic abuse forum. That is because these complaints are late. Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (22 004 278) Summary: The Council was not at fault for how it dealt with Mr and Mrs X when they raised concerns about the emotional development of a child in their care. It listened to them, referred the child for developmental assessments and offered them support. London Borough of Harrow (22 008 462) Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council's handling following a disclosure of sexual abuse by her child, Child Y. There was no fault in the Council's child protection enquiry into the allegation or the support offered to the family at the time. The Council took significantly longer than it should to respond to Mrs X's stage two complaint. The Council should also have done more to act on requests for specific help made by Mr Z on Mrs X's behalf. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay £100 to Mrs X for the injustice caused by the complaint response delay. The Council will also offer to complete an Education, Health and Care needs assessment of Child Y as Mr Z requested. London Borough of Brent (23 000 449) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about the Council's management of Y and J's foster care placement. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to result in a different outcome. West Sussex County Council (23 000 702) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X's contact arrangements with his children. This is because it would be reasonable for Mr X to refer this matter to the courts. Norfolk County Council (23 000 788) Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's involvement in a special guardianship application. We cannot investigate matters involved in court proceedings. And the Information Commissioner's Office is better placed to consider data protection breaches. Devon County Council (23 001 301) Summary: Ms X was unhappy with the Council's decision not to accept a complaint about its involvement with her family. We will not investigate Ms X's complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. Also, Ms X does not have authority to complain on behalf of the child at the heart of her case. Worcestershire County Council (22 004 178) Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to provide her son (Y) with education and free school meals. We found fault with the Council for failing to provide Y education. We recommended the Council apologise to Miss X and pay £1400 in recognition of Y's missed education and £250 for uncertainty and distress. Bracknell Forest Council (22 007 045) Summary: Mr X complained the Council has not provided education for his daughter, Y, since she has been unable to attend school from January 2022. He also complained Y has not had the full provision set out in her Education, Health and care plan (EHCP) and the Council has not adhered to statutory timescales about the EHCP and annual review documentation. Mr X also says the communication with the Council throughout this matter has been poor. Mr X says Y has missed education, Occupational therapy and Speech and Language Therapy provision and the family have been put under considerable stress. The Council did not provide education until appeal rights to the tribunal were engaged, did not provide documentation after annual reviews within the statutory timescales and communication was difficult. Mr X and Y suffered distress and Mr X has been put to time and trouble to complain. The Council should apologise to Mr X and Y, make a financial payment on top of the amount identified in its complaint response, ensure provision is in place for Y and update its policies. Leicestershire County Council (22 012 573) Summary: Miss B complained about the actions of the Council in respect of her daughter C's special educational needs following an annual review in May 2022. The Council accepted some fault as part of its complaint response and offered to pay Miss B around £4000. It has now agreed to reimburse the cost of a private educational psychology report (£1600) as well. We considered this was a fair and proportionate way of putting right the injustice caused to Miss B and C. Plymouth City Council (22 015 452) Summary: The Council's delay issuing an amended Education, Health and Care Plan following Child Y's annual review was fault. The Council was also at fault for its approach to school admissions for children with EHC Plans. The Council has agreed to apologise, make payments to Child Y and Ms X, issue an amended Plan, and act to improve its services. Hampshire County Council (22 015 468) Summary: The Council was at fault because it delayed producing an education, health and care plan for a child with special educational needs. It was also at fault because of delays in its correspondence with the complainant. It had already offered a financial remedy for the injustice this fault caused, but has agreed to increase its offer upon our recommendation. Gloucestershire County Council (23 000 368) Summary: We will not investigate X's complaint about which school is named in an Education Health and Care Plan. It is reasonable to expect X to appeal to the Tribunal. London Borough of Haringey (22 008 452) Summary: Mr X complained the Council refused to arrange an occupational therapy assessment of his home. The Council failed to properly respond to Mr X's request for an occupational therapy assessment and poorly communicated with him. The Council agreed to apologise and pay Mr X a financial remedy. Wiltshire Council (22 012 983) Summary: Mr B says the Council's designated officer for allegations failed to properly oversee the allegation management process, failed to ensure the process was fair and evidence based, failed to ensure the decision was properly reached and delayed telling him the outcome of the process. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council managed the process but there was fault in delaying issuing the decision and including some incorrect information in the decision letter. An apology is satisfactory remedy. Cumbria County Council (22 013 806) Summary: We uphold Mr X's complaint the Council failed to comply with the Children Act statutory complaints' procedure. The Council has now agreed to do so. West Northamptonshire Council (22 015 236) Summary: We will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the Council's actions while she was a looked after child. There are no good reasons the late complaint rule should not apply. And we cannot investigate information given to a Court. Oxfordshire County Council (23 000 027) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the actions of social workers and managers regarding the care of the complainant's children. This is because the complaint concerns matters which have been considered and decided in court. Plymouth City Council (23 000 988) Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's involvement in Miss X's child's case. The law prevents us from investigating matters that are before the courts. Wakefield City Council (22 005 628) Summary: Ms X complained the Council took too long to complete the annual review of her son's Education, Health and Care Plan. We found fault by the Council. The Council agreed to provide Ms X with a written apology and a payment for the distress caused to her and to improve its service. West Northamptonshire Council (22 013 304) Summary: Ms M complains about delays by the Council carrying out education, health and care needs assessments for her children, B and C. The delays were caused by a shortage of Educational Psychologists. The Council apologised and has offered a symbolic payment for the impact on B whose EHC Plan was delayed as a result. The Council has recruited more Educational Psychologists. Cheshire West & Chester Council (22 011 875) Summary: We have discontinued our investigation into Miss B's children's social care complaint. Although the Council did not initially consider her complaint, it has now agreed to do so. It would be reasonable for the Council to respond fully under the relevant complaints procedure before Miss B approaches us again. Birmingham City Council (22 013 073) Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed in considering his application to renew his chaperone licence. This meant Mr X was unable to accept the chaperone roles he was offered and lost income. The Council's delays and failure to properly consider Mr X's request for reimbursement of his losses was fault. The Council has now offered to apologise and reimburse Mr X in full. This is an appropriate remedy. Warwickshire County Council (23 000 686) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council refusing to escalate his complaint to stage two of the Children Act complaints' procedure. It is unlikely we would find he has been caused any significant injustice. Warwickshire County Council (23 000 794) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council refusing to escalate his complaint to stage two of the Children Act complaints' procedure. It is unlikely we would find he has been caused any significant injustice. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (22 008 994) Summary: Miss Z complains about the actions of the Council when she requested an Education Health and Care assessment for her son, Y. We find fault because the Council took eleven months to notify Miss Z of its decision not to assess Y. The Council also took seven months to respond to Miss Z's complaint. This fault caused injustice because it frustrated Miss Z's right of appeal. The Council will remedy the injustice with the actions list at the end of this statement. Devon County Council (22 016 086) Summary: There was fault by the Council in the way it handled two reviews of an Education, Health and Care plan for Ms X and her child. This caused unnecessary frustration, distress, time and trouble. The Council will apologise, make a financial payment and make service improvements. The complaint is upheld. Oxfordshire County Council (22 017 645) Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint about the Council's complaint handling. We are not investigating the reasons she complained to the Council. Reading Borough Council (22 006 571) Summary: Ms B complained the Council failed in its duty to tell the child and adolescent mental health service her three children were subject to child protection plans. She says if the Council had done so, her children would have been assessed for autism spectrum disorder sooner. She complained the Council's failure significantly delayed her children getting the support they needed. We did not find fault with the Council. Essex County Council (22 010 217) Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint that he is owed foster payments for a child he cared for from 2017 to 2020. The complaint lies outside our jurisdiction because it is late and I see no good grounds to exercise discretion to consider it now. Swindon Borough Council (22 012 439) Summary: Mr and Mrs E complained how the Council handled allegations they raised about an incident that took place at their son's school. They also say the Council failed to comply with the timescales set out in its complaints procedure and the statutory guidance. We find some fault with the way the Council dealt with the allegations Mr and Mrs E raised. The Council apologised to Mr and Mrs E, offered them a suitable financial payment and implemented service improvements. However, the Council was also at fault for its delays during the statutory complaints procedure and for how it responded to the investigating officer's report. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to implement further service improvements to prevent a recurrence of the fault. Wakefield City Council (22 016 069) Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council's children's services. This is because the issues raised have formed part of court proceedings. Social Work England are better placed to consider complaints about the conduct of social workers. Other matters are premature as they have not been through the Council's complaints procedure. Birmingham City Council (20 007 084) Summary: Miss D complained about the Council's failure to provide appropriate social care support for her son. She also complained the Council delayed dealing with her complaint. We find the Council was at fault for its communication with Miss D about whether to reimburse her for the second carer she had employed. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss D for the injustice caused. We look at individual complaints about local public services and all registerable social care providers in England. We remedy injustice and share learning from investigations to improve services. When we find a council or care provider has done something wrong, we recommend how it should put it right. We are free to use and make our decisions independently. Find out more about us at www.lgo.org.uk Manage preferences or unsubscribe Contact us

 

This email was sent to ooseims.archieves@blogger.com using GovDelivery Communications Cloud on behalf of: The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman · 53-55 Butts Road · Coventry · CV1 3BH